The Australian government's media law reforms and their implications for free-to -air television
Media ownership in Australia has been criticised by political and community groups for being too concentrated. (Wikipedia 2007) Australia’s newspaper ownership is ‘the most concentrated in the world’. (Tiffen 2006) Out of the eleven metropolitan papers Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited own six, Fairfax own three and only two are owned by “independents”. News Limited and Fairfax make up 88% of national newspaper circulation. (Tiffen 2006) Similarly, in radio, 80 per cent of the stations are in the hands of 12 radio networks (Nielson Media Research, 2007) and free-to-air television, which is the focus of this analysis, remains a ‘regulated oligopoly’. (Flew and Gilmour, 2006)
Who owns Free-to-Air Television?
· The Australian Government
ABC and SBS TV are both publicly owned stations.
· Publishing Broadcasting Limited (PBL) (Packer family)
Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL) wholly owns Channel 9. Their controller stakeholder of Channel 9 is Consolidated Press Holdings Limited. PBL is other interests include Pay TV, (with a 25% share of Foxtel), film production, newspapers and magazines. (Armstrong, M and Molnar H, 1996)
· CanWest Global
The Canadian company owns the majority of Channel 10 with a 56% stake in the network. (Wikipedia 2007)
· News Limited & Kerry Stokes
Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited and Kerry Stokes own 14% and 19% respectively of Channel 7. (Armstrong, M and Molnar H, 1996)
Current Television Laws
The current media laws for television as per the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 are:
· A person must not control television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area exceeds 75 per cent of the population of Australia, or more than one licence within a licence area (section 53).
· Foreign persons must not be in a position to control a licence and the total of foreign interests must not exceed 20 per cent (section 57).
· There are also limits on multiple directorships (section 55) and foreign directors (section 58).
Under section 60 a person must not control:
· a commercial television broadcasting licence and a commercial radio broadcasting licence having the same licence area;
· a commercial television broadcasting licence and a newspaper associated with that licence area;
· or a commercial radio broadcasting licence and newspaper associated with that licence area.
Changes to media ownership laws in Australia
Media ownership is a regularly debated topic in Australia. Previous attempts to change legislation by the current government had been rejected, most recently in 2002. However, the last election of October 2004 saw the Howard government gain a majority in both houses, meaning that they were able to introduce legislative changes with relative ease, examples of this seen in both the industrial relations reforms and of course the media law reforms.
On 13 July 2006 Federal Communications Minister, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan outlined the government’s proposed media law reforms. The reason given by Senator Coonan for the law reforms are that ‘Traditional media services are being challenged by new digital technologies… the impact of digital technologies means the current regulatory settings, which are largely designed for an analogue world, risk becoming outdated’ (Coonan 2006) (By October 2006, Federal Parliament had passed changes to deregulate current media ownership. The date of proclamation according to Coonan, is (somewhat confusing) but ‘certainly before about the middle of the year’ (Schulze 2007).
Significant Changes to Television Laws
· No new free-to-air television stations, however, multi-channelling of the current stations will be allowed for commercial free-to-air stations and public broadcasters. Those with a digital set top box could see an example of this via the government’s test channel ABC2, which offers some content not available on ABC TV and also repeats content aired on the primary station.
· Anti-syphoning laws – a ‘use it or lose it scheme’, (Connan, 2006) meaning that if a network purchases the rights to show a program, they must screen it. In the past there have been cases, particularly in relation to sport where networks would buy the rights to two events that would be broadcast at the same time then only screen one in an attempt to eliminate competition for ratings.
· Foreign ownership restrictions will be removed except in instances involving other legislation e.g. general competition law. Overseas parties interested in investing in the Australian media will need to be approved by the Treasurer. (Connan, 2006)
· Cross-media Ownership – conditional removal of these laws. For instance, there is still a requirement of there to be a number of ‘players’ in the marketplace – the proposed figures are five in state capitals and four in regional areas. This may sound like a significant number, but it is a reduction from the current figure of eleven.
· Two new digital channels named Channel A and Channel B will be introduced, however, the government has stressed heavily that these will not be two new commercial licences. Options for the services listed by the government include ‘subscription TV services, FTA niche ‘narrowcasting' services, as well as interactive and short video or ‘datacasting' services, whether delivered to fixed or mobile television receivers’. (Coonan 2006)
· The government will be legislating that it will be in control of any future commercial channels that will be created outside the BSB (Broadcasting Service Band) spectrum instead of current body ACMA.
Implications of changes
Major media players have already been circulating to increase their empires as the date of implementation draws closer – examples include the recent merger between Fairfax and Rural Press and rumours of Fairfax purchasing Channel 10. Currently, the cross-media laws are in place to ensure that there is a diversity of opinions, particularly in what is regarded as ‘media of influence’ – free-to-air television, newspapers and radios. In theory, the legislation means you could either be (as termed by former Prime Minister, Paul Keating) a ‘queen of the screen, prince of print or raja of radio’, (Murray, 2005). This theory has not yet proven prophetic, as these rules are based on geographic location and do not take into account Pay TV, the Internet or the effects of globalisation.
One of the implications of deregulating media ownership in Australia is that this could decrease diversity in a market that already has a concentrated media ownership. For example, Australian born come American citizen, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation owns approximately 55% of Australian newspapers, major international Pay TV stations Fox Television and online media including MySpace. With the removal of the foreign and cross-media ownership laws, Murdoch’s next investment could quite easily cross other media platforms including increasing his free-to-air television stake. For a company that through its investments has a global reach of 75% of the population, this is frightening. (Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism) Journalist Eric Beecher raises a valid point, questioning who the new laws are set to benefit, stating they will increase the ‘power of a very small number of media owners using their media outlets to influence public debate, public policy, public decisions’. (Beecher, n.d.) Former Prime Minister, Paul Keating whose government introduced the Broadcast Act of 1992, restricting ownership, argues that the current governmental changes are set to benefit two parties – the Packer-controlled Publishing and Broadcasting Limited and the Murdoch-controlled News Limited. (Keating 2005) This is in stark contrast to Connan’s position that the laws are set to create a ‘richer and more diverse media environment for Australian consumers’. (Coonan 2006)
References
Armstrong, M and Molnar H, (eds) (Media and Telecommunications Policy Group), 1996, Control and Ownership of Australian Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Beecher, E n.d., ‘The media gods must be crazy’, The Walkley Magazine, n.d.,
http://magazine.walkleys.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
26 May 2007
Coonan, H 2006, Meeting the Digital Challenge: Reforming Australia 's media in the digital age, Australian Government, viewed 14 April 2007,
http://www.minister.dcita.gov.au/media/media_releases/meeting_the_digital_challenge_reforming_australias_media_in_the_digital_age
Flew, T and Gilmour, C 2006, ’Television and Pay TV’ in Cunningham, S & Turner, G The Media and Communications in Australia, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, Maryborough, pp175-192.
Keating, P 2005, ‘A crude end to cross-media laws signals a dangerous power trip’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 September:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-crude-end-to-crossmedia-laws-signals-a-dangerous-power-trip/2005/09/28/1127804547001.html
1 May 2007
Murray, S 2005,’Think Global, Act Global: Corporate Content Streaming and Australian Media Policy’, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, Vol 2005, No. 116, August, pp 100-116, viewed 1 May 2007, IngentaConnect.
Nielson Media Research 2007, ‘Radio’, AC Neilson, viewed 1 May 2007,
http://www.nielsenmedia.com.au/industry.asp?industryID=13&Go.x=20&Go.y=8&Go=Industry
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism, 2004, video recording, ABC, USA, 23 April 2007.
Schulze, J 2007, ‘Coonan to OK laws by June’, The Australian (Media Section), 22 March:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21423667-7582,00.html
1 May 2007
Tiffen, R 2006, ‘The Press’ in Cunningham, S & Turner, G The Media and Communications in Australia, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, Maryborough, pp97-112.
Wikipedia, 2007, Concentration of Media Ownership, MediaWiki, viewed 19 April 2007,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#Australia
Wikipedia, 2007, Network Ten, MediaWiki, viewed 23 May 2007,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Ten
No comments:
Post a Comment